But if there was a second-place prize for the world’s biggest economic failure, Argentina would be a strong contender.

Here’s one fact that tells you everything you need to know. In 1946, when Juan Perón came to power, Argentina was one of the 10-richest nations in the world. Economic policy certainly wasn’t perfect, but government wasn’t overly large are markets generally were allowed to function. Combined with an abundance of natural resources, that enabled considerable prosperity.

Campaigning among workers with promises of land, higher wages, and social security, he won a decisive victory in the 1946 presidential elections. Under Perón, the number of unionized workers expanded as he helped to establish the powerful General Confederation of Labor. Perón turned Argentina into a corporatist country in which powerful organized interest groups negotiated for positions and resources. …The state’s role in the economy increased, reflected in the increase in state-owned property, interventionism (including control of rents and prices) and higher levels of public inversion, mainly financed by the inflationary tax. The expansive macroeconomic policy, which aimed at the redistribution of wealth and the increase of spending to finance populist policies, led to inflation. …Perón erected a system of almost complete protection against imports, largely cutting off Argentina from the international market. In 1947, he announced his first Five-Year Plan based on growth of nationalized industries.

So were these policies successful?

Not exactly. In an article published last year, The Economist wrote about Argentina’s sad decline.

…its standing as one of the world’s most vibrant economies is a distant memory… Its income per head is now 43% of those same 16 rich economies… After the second world war, when the rich world began its slow return to free trade with the negotiation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947, Argentina had become a more closed economy—and it kept moving in that direction under Perón. An institution to control foreign trade was created in 1946; an existing policy of import substitution deepened; the share of trade as a percentage of GDP continued to fall. …As the urban, working-class population swelled, so did the constituency susceptible to Perón’s promise to support industry and strengthen workers’ rights. There have been periods of liberalisation since, but interventionism retains its allure.

The bottom line is that Perón was a disaster for his nation. Not only did he sabotage Argentina’s economy, he also apparently undermined the social capital of the country by somehow convincing a big chunk of the population that “Peronism” is an alluring economic philosophy.

The Economist recently called Francis “the Peronist Pope,” referring to his known sympathies for Argentina’s three-time president, Juan Perón. In the 1940s and ’50s, the populist general upended Argentina’s class structure by championing the country’s downtrodden. …“Neither Marxists nor Capitalists. Peronists!” was the chant of Perón’s supporters. And it was borrowing from the church’s political thinking that enabled Perón to found his “Third Way.” …It comes naturally, then, to Francis, who became a priest in Argentina’s politically engaged church hierarchy, to adopt a populist political tone… He speaks directly to the region’s poor with a fire found in the “liberation theology” that inspired South America’s leftist revolutionaries of the 1970s. …“If you were to read one of the sermons of the first fathers of the church, from the second or third centuries, about how you should treat the poor, you’d say it was Maoist or Trotskyist,” he said in 2010, when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires.

Pope Francis’ infatuation with statism is very unfortunate for a couple of reasons.

[…] P.P.S. On the topic of religion and public policy, I’ve been critical of Pope Francis. His heart may be in the right place, but he’s misguided about the policies that actually help the less fortunate. For what it’s worth, it would be helpful if he was guided by the moral wisdom of Walter Williams rather than the destructive statism of Juan Peron. […]

[…] nation. …After World War II, Argentina was one of the world’s 10-richest nations. But then Juan Peron took power and initiated Argentina’s slide toward big government, which eroded the nation’s […]

[…] The most striking result is that Vatican CIty (which wasn’t even in the top-20 three years ago) is where I have the highest percentage of readership. Though I definitely don’t think this means “most popular” since my columns about the economic views of Pope Francis have been less than flattering (see here, here, here, here, and here). […]

[…] P.P.S. This is why I’ve been critical of Pope Francis. His heart may be in the right place, but he’s misguided about the policies that actually help the less fortunate. For what it’s worth, it would be helpful if he was guided by the moral wisdom of Walter Williams rather than the destructive statism of Juan Peron. […]

Dan, I can’t post it due to no permissions, but I’ve got a hilarious Pope-meme that belongs here. It’s a pic of him with the words:

“THE POPE IS WARNING ABOUT AN INVASION OF LIBERTARIANS….
(above a pic of the Pope holding an ornate cross.)
BECAUSE LIVING IN A TAX FREE COMPOUND FULL OF GOLD AND GUNS WHILE SUPPORTING CHARITIES AND PEACE ON EARTH IS WRONG”

If you agree it belongs here, I can send it to you somehow, or you may already have seen it.

[…] nations in the world, ranked in the top 10 at the end of World War II. But then decades of statism, starting with Peron and continuing through Kirchner, wreaked havoc with the nation’s economy and Argentina has […]

[…] heads are already out there explaining how Pope Francis’s earlier-in-life brush with Argentinian Peronist populism has apparently blinded him to the data, but do you want to know what really bothers me about this […]

[…] It seems to me that Pope Francis had a negative experience with Argentina’s supposed ‘capitalist past’, which might have shaped his views. The problem he makes is to conflate true capitalism with corporatism, which is a bastardised system where government and corporations sleep with one another, and engage in crony behaviour. This is where corruption, bribery and distasteful things happen. Argentina thus was never truly capitalist. […]

[…] The obvious answer is communism, which produced tens of millions of needless deaths and untold misery for ordinary people. Just compare living standards in North Korea and South Korea, or Chile and Cuba. ∞∞∞∞∞ MORE »»»» […]

Pope Francis finds himself cast by his peers as the leader of the Church bracketed by the legacy of a Polish freedom fighter and a German theologian. His own life experience is pockmarked with teaching moments facing Argentine dictatorships, fascism, populism, economic mismanagement, bankruptcy, and Latin American Liberation theology. He will have to live through these consequences, and so will the Church, and the World.

The legacy of Pope John Paul was largely promoting the values inherent in individual freedom, made politically and economically functional through religious freedom, democratic government, and market economics. That of Pope Benedict seems to have been the need to confront European history and the distortions of its heritage crafted by governments pursuing group loyalties, eschewing, by and large, fundamental values championed by the Church, that is, those based on the preservation of life, human dignity, and the discipline needed to respond to the nature and yearnings of individuals. In shorthand, their “souls.”

Pope Francis’ response, being thrust into leadership of the Church, draws largely on his life’s experience, and apparently less on Church history. The lodestar he has chosen is St. Francis, touched in a moral way, albeit materially quixotic. His expressed understanding and meaning in the teachings of Jesus Christ are heartwarming. His alignment with secular scientist over policies related to global warm are a laudable reflection of his attempt to address the needs of the poor. In that direction, however, Pope Francis, and many scientist, may be mistaken. Global warming is not settled science. Science never is.

The error of the Church in condemning Galileo’s helioocentrism in the past may parallel that now being taken with respect to global warming. The accompanying actions proposed by zealots believing in of the negative impact of warming, run the risk of being seriously misguided. Past directions undertaken by secular leaders to address problems to which they once subscribed, have all too frequently, albeit unintentionally, been harmful to humanity, and the poor. Population growth, for example, once viewed as catastrophic, formed the rationalization for aggressive contraception programs and the legalization of abortion, that is, anti-life policies. That experience ought to be sufficient warning to all, the Church included, of a possibly hellish road of good intentions clothed in secular misdirection.

Historically, St. Francis, among other things, undertook initially to rebuild a nearby church. and then, the entire Church organization. He chose to live simply, loving nature, and personally helping the needy. So far, so good, as guidance for the new Pope. In addition, Pope Francis’ leadership reflects his understanding of Christ’s life and example. However, being human, he may be error prone. Chance, and history would inform him that the world is a dangerous, unsettled, creation. He may be choosing to lead the Church as an active participant in political and economic directions. That may clash with an admonition from, and guidance of, Christ.

Government did not seem to be Christ’s chosen field. Specifically, his advised his disciples, and his followers, to keep away from it, using the words, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” And when he asked them to join him, his offer was for them to, “Come after me, and I shall make you to become fishers of men.” In these examples, Christ seemed to advise staying away from addressing government rulers and priests weilding power over material things. Christ’s words seem directed more toward individuals and the common man to be true to their better nature. With respect governance, he recommended distance, perhaps separation. Misinterpreted, he was crucified.

In governance, the record, and experience of the Church has been, in one word, tragic. Framing and enforcing the law through secular rulers and institutions of government has not worked out well. In the biblical narrative of creation, the Devil, exercising his free will, chose to challenge the Almighty. For his ambitious attempt to be supreme, he was cast into Hell. Historically, the Church, mistakenly, chose to instigate religious and secular wars. As a result, it was ultimately relegated to the residue of its secular empire – the Vatican. What it retained effortlessly, however, was its suasion over individual beliefs, and the life lessons of Christ. These were, and apparently continue to be, consistent with human experience and nature.

Pope Francis ought to take heed of this history. Rushing in a direction where “angels fear to tread” while tempting, may not be best for the Church. The secular world is fraught with errors. Attempting to creatively manipulate it results routinely in overreaching, if not outright mistakes. The secular world is not easily tamed. Attempts are best left to the machinations of Caesars. Better for the Church to keep teaching its disciples to fish. It has its lasting effect on human nature. Indirectly, it may enhance mankind’s ability to achieve peace on earth.